APPEAL HEARING ON DISMISSAL OF ELIGIBILITY HEARING

Citizens for the Constitution;
As one of the 30 Military plaintiffs on the lawsuit of Barnett/Keyes vs. Obama, I was most interested in the appeal hearing on May 2, 2011 in Pasadena, CA, before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


This was the case that Judge David O. Carter had originally heard in September 2009, wherein he had stated that he was definitely going to look at the merits of the matter (in-Eligibility of the putative pResident), but by the time of the second hearing, a Perkins Coie (Obama’s White House counsel) employee was now a Carter Court law-clerk, charged with writing his decisions. Carter’s rulings and vicious attacks on Attorney Orly Taitz gave him the ultimate label of being a treasonous and cowardly ‘ex-Marine’ (a label formerly more suitable for ex-Marine Congressman John – ‘our troops are raping and murdering in the middle of the night’ – Murtha.)


Read below, as Orly describes this case, and the counter-productive efforts of Philip Berg and Gary Kreep (who has never filed a case on his own in this matter of (in)Eligibility. Orly’s presentation in 10 minutes was impressive indeed, and carried 10 times the weight of the 18 minutes of ‘arguments’ by Kreep. (NOTE: Phil Berg called him Gary CRAP in an interview for himself after the hearing: Justice is Served, IMHO

If you do take the time to watch this CNN produced video, be sure to observe some of the questions by the judges, and their responses to Orly’s vs. Kreep’s pleadings. They should have had a hard time sleeping that night, but then, again, this is the inimitable and infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We await their decision.

In Liberty,

Neil B. Turner

Citizens for the Constitution

NBTurner@Earthlink.net


YOUTUBE OF APPEAL SESSION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBLA2NdQZoM&feature=player_embedded

Comments by Attorney Orly Taitz:

I need to explain a couple of points, which people might not know or understand. I filed this case as the only attorney on inauguration day (before Obama was inaugurated as President – while he was still a private citizen). Gary Kreep joined only towards the end.

I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives, and 30 members of the military (41 plaintiffs). Mr. Kreep represents only 2 clients.

After (Judge David O.) Carter ordered the case dismissed, Kreep filed his appeal right away. I filed a motion for reconsideration (instead), in order to preserve several issues on appeal. After Carter denied my motion for reconsideration, I filed my appeal.

Kreep had only one issue –(the) ‘standing’ of his 2 clients, members of American Independent Party: (Pastor Wiley) Drake and (Markham) Robinson, and the judges were saying that they do not have any particular standing; their standing does not differ from standing of others.

On the other hand, I have 41 clients with different standing and more hearings and motions and decisions, as I was an attorney on the case the whole time. Unfortunately a dirty trick was played in relation to time to speak during the oral argument. (Kreep got to speak first, and he used 18 of the allotted 20 minutes).

While people might think that undue influence by the White House on a presiding Judge is not important, it is actually of paramount importance. We have a case of the White House applying pressure on a federal Judge deciding eligibility of the sitting president, and the White House was doing this by using the U.S. Attorneys’ office and Obama’s personal law firm, Perkins Coie, which placed one of their attorneys as the attorney-clerk for the Judge! The 9th circuit court of Appeals is concerned about violations of due process and violations of the Constitution.

One of the cases before ours dealt with a magistrate judge reading some documents, supplied to her by the prison authorities, where the defendant did not have access to such documents. As I sat in the audience and listened to the Judges commenting on previous cases, I could hear them say that even the prisoners and criminals have their constitutional rights, and they are concerned about violations of those rights. (As a result) I could tell that I would have to stress the issue of such violations in Judge Carter’s courtroom, in that Obama sent a US attorney to act as his de-facto attorney after default.

It was an abuse of judicial discretion on part of the Judge to allow the US attorney to demand anything; to make a quid pro quo, and of course later to violate the same quid pro quo. It was a clear undue influence on the Judge by the White House to place Perkins Coie attorney Siddharth Velamoor as a clerk for Judge Carter. Additionally, it was a complete outrage, where a concerted effort was made by this Perkins Coie attorney and the court to attack me personally and try to elevate (Attorney Gary) Kreep.

You could see that for the longest time only I and Attorney Mario Apuzzo were continuing to push Vattel’s definition of Natural born Citizen. Kreep and (Attorney Philip) Berg were fighting us. If arguing the birth certificate (only) would be valid, then it would end the whole issue of eligibility. If you read all of Kreep’s and Berg’s arguments up until now, they have argued that Natural born is one born in the country (period – end of argument). I was arguing that it is a combination of birth (location) and citizenship of parents.

Also, none of these two attorneys dared to touch the issue of Social Security fraud. I am the only one who raised it in my pleadings. Again, if arguendo the BC is correct, there is still the Selective Service Registration fraud, which would not only remove Obama from office, but will have him in prison.

Of great concern is the fact that Kreep and Berg harassed me with frivolous law-suits, which cost me a lot of time and money. If these people are really on our side, why are they harassing me with law-suits? It seems they lead the cases towards a direction most favorable to (Obama’s) defense. If you read what the Obots on Politijab and Fogbow are writing, you can see that they are doing what Velamoor did: trying to attack me and elevate Kreep, and you know on whose side they are.

Lastly, if you look at the work done, Berg filed his 2 cases in 2008 and did not have any new clients or new cases for over 2 years. Kreep joined my Keyes, Drake and Robinson case and that is it. He did not file any more cases, no more clients. I filed multiple cases around the country and did over 40 trips all over the country to promote this issue with legislators all over the country.

I filed a motion with the court of Appeals asking for the maximum time, which is 20 minutes for the defendant and 20 for the plaintiffs. The court of appeals granted maximum time and stated that we need to divide it equally between 2 cases and the case with the lower numerical number goes first. Kreep’s appeal started with 09-, my started with 10-, so he was first. He was supposed to talk for 10 minutes and stop and let me speak for 10 minutes. Instead Kreep did something totally creepy: he spoke for 18 minutes and said that he wants the remaining 2 minutes for rebuttal. He clearly saw that the clock was set for 20 minutes, which was supposed to be divided. Luckily, as I stepped to the lectern, I noticed that the clock showed 2 minutes left and argued and demanded my full 10 minutes, but what Kreep did was a really yet another dirty trick.

We will have to wait and see what the court will decide. Keep in mind it is 9th Circuit, most liberal in the country, and we are talking about a liberal president. They might deny, but if they were to rule on the merits, we have much better merits, as Kreep’s two clients are just members of American Independent party.

Our case has better standing. Additionally, attacks on me personally were so outrageous that I don’t know how any appellate judge with a drop of decency in her or his blood can say that there was no undue influence. I looked at the judges when I spoke about those abuses; I could tell that they were embarrassed.

The undue influence abuse of judicial discretion was so flagrant that they could not say anything. What could they ask? Does the U.S. attorney believe that it is acceptable for the presiding Judge to get some slanderous letters about the plaintiffs’ attorney directly into his chambers, attack her in his memorandum order, and not give her an opportunity to respond? Can anyone argue that it is legal, acceptable or ethical? This might be OK in the environment of Chicago mafia, but not among decent human beings and or in a court of law. Neither the Judges, nor US attorney could say that I was wrong on any of these issues.

I am a civil rights defender, and as such, I filed formal complaints with the UN committee for Civil rights defenders and Inter-American commission for violation of human rights. What was done to me personally and my clients in these courts is unthinkable, particularly what was done by Judge Clay D. Land in GA ($20,000 fine just for bringing an (in)Eligibility lawsuit to his Court). I hope that the rule of law and decency will prevail, but we will have to wait and see.

/S/ Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
4 May, 2011